Multidisciplinary project valuation with fullness of complementary variables

Many philanthropic and well-organized governments have for long been practicing social security, guaranteed income, and medical guarantee for low-income families. Such financial insurance for the low-income recipient citizens has paved the way towards perpetual national wellbeing. Thereby, fiscal policy of national spending on social security in its broad meaning contains in this formula financing of public funds by moral and material resource allocation. This practice is found to exist particularly in the exemplary case of Canadian social security.15 Another is the exemplary case of the Scandinavian social security.16

Many corporations now include formula financing of human and environmental ethical concerns. The well-known example of this kind is corporate social responsibility (CSR). As a social term by its conveyance though, its practice is limited to spending on ethical outlets and thereby receiving tax rebate at the business level. This return in turn compensates the firm for the incurred costs of CSR. Besides, the additional production cost of the CSR goods transferred on to the consumer causes an increase in the social transaction cost of socio-ethical benefits. Prices increase thereby as the component of consumer spending. An example of this is that the rollover of social transaction cost in goods and services on the consumer defeats the role of consciousness of ethicality as internalized endogenous moral value of CSR.

An example of such a conscious internalization of social values was formalized by Choudhury (2014)17 based on the following conception: the science-economy-society model of moral inclusiveness gives the nature of the creative firm as a cooperator rather than a competitor. Thereby, the theoiy of the firm in such a case is different from the profit and output maximizing objective of the neoclassical producer. The contrary firm as a participative producer and seller extends the activities of the resulting participative firm. In this case, the complementary goals of extensive moral inclusiveness make the firms as a paired institution with market, self, and other participating combinations. The kinds of firms that so emerge are learning institutions between the producer, distributor, and buyer across the private, public, and global sectors of the world-system. Our earlier studied dynamics of interaction, integration, and evolutionary learning between diverse entities, agents, and agencies of the conscious social economy is invoked.

Within such a complex of participation, all the aggregate and disaggregate variables explained in Figure 6.2 give rise to pertinent definitions and applications, teaching, and morally inclusive consciousness. The implications of economic and social ideas of production, consumption, productivity, efficiency, and wellbeing are changed in subtle ways of moral inclusiveness. The earlier explained conception of‘incapability’ contrary to the ‘capability’ concept forms the underlying extensive science-economy-society multidisciplinary ensemble of moral inclusiveness. We refer to the emergent worldview of coiporate social responsibility in concert with the complementary domain of unity of knowledge. The emergent concept of CSR is termed as conscious corporate social responsibility (CCSR) in its substantive sense of conscious invoking of moral values endogenously invoked.

Choudhury (2014 op. cit.) formalizes the objective criterion of science- economy-society with moral inclusiveness by the following approach to the emergent analytical modelling. As it was explained regarding the new features of the neoclassical economic growth model and the endogenous growth model, inter-variable complementarities and abstracto-empirical consciousness meaning of the circular causation relations must be well defined. In the imminent pervasively complementary domain of unity of knowledge, consciousness as a well-defined function of unity of knowledge by universal pairing between the good things as permissible entities and avoidance of pandemic episodes embed all conscious practices.

With all such science-economy-society moral inclusiveness in the abstracto-empirical sense of consciousness, the CCSR model of production and consumption derived from the wellbeing objective criterion is written as

The tenn abstracto-empirical means the embedding of imponderable ontological moral values in materiality of being and becoming of the diverse world-system. These moral values blended endogenously form the implicative nature of consciousness as the abstracto-empirical phenomena. Such a science-economy-society transformation in moral inclusiveness is what Michio Kaku (2015, p. 43)1S refers to in the abstracto-materiality sense: “Consciousness is the process of creating a model of the world using multiple feedback loops in various parameters.” In our case of developing a multidisciplinary moral ensemble model of pandemic control, the science-economy-society materiality and imponderables denote the various parameters. This case was also denoted in expression (6.3).

Q(0(s)) denotes joint production function of complementary life-sustaining outputs, Q,(0(e)). Q(0(e)) denotes participative sectoral production shared by joint production functions of complementary life-sustaining productions, Qj(0(s)). These variables form the disaggregated vector components shown in expression (6.3) to combat the ‘incapability’ adversities of poverty caused by pandemic situations. Thus,

C(0(s)) denotes community-shared joint consumption function of complementary life-sustaining goods and sendees, Cj(0(e)). These elements also form the disaggregated vector components shown in expression (6.3) to combat the ‘incapability’ caused by poverty as yet another example of pandemic situations. Thus,

M(6(s)) denotes a compound index of various finance mobilizing instruments, Mk(6(£)), which denote those financial instruments that enable economy-money capability, commodities, functioning, and wellbeing and deter the incidence of ‘incapability’ caused by poverty as an example of pandemic situation. Thus,

Likewise, T(0(s)) denotes technological change denoting the intensification of particular kinds of choice of technology by sectoral diversification and equally labor-capital augmenting technological change for enhancing participative socio-economic development across all possible complementary enabling entities. Thus,

denote imponderable variables based on human civic values, global neighbourhood, and the like (Commission on Global Governance, 1995),19 and spirituality.20 Data on these variables are acquired by questionnaire surveys. Observations so collated are converted by geometric or arithmetic averages. Data collected by survey across respondents can be collated together for J,(6(s» and J2(6(8)).21

We note that all variables in their aggregate and disaggregate vectors, thereby in their microeconomic state economy-wide, are governed by IIE- leaming properties of imponderable attributes that induce knowledge formation respecting a participative world-system of unity of knowledge. The coll ecting possibilities of pandemic control and their adverse consequences are realized uniformly across science-economy-society by the underlying multidisciplinary model of moral inclusiveness.

The compounding expression (6.4) of W^. .) and W2(. .) points out how two distinct data sets, secondaiy and primary with different range of observations, are used to evaluate the wellbeing functions in materiality and imponderable variables of the multidisciplinary ensemble. Each of these individual wellbeing segments of the total W(..) has its evaluated quantitative segments, say 0; and 02, respectively. Thereby, for the whole quantitative form of the wellbeing function, 0 = у(0)*0,а02|5 in generalized sense with the coefficients as functions of their respective knowledge parameters.

In completeness of the objective function of wellbeing for the governance of pandemic episodes of various kinds, referred to in this chapter by poverty as cause and effect of СОУШ-19, the multidisciplinary model of science- economy-society moral inclusiveness is now formalized as follows:

Expression (6.4) —* W(. .) = Product of expressions (6.5)-(6.9) across the respective range of subscripts, given the individual analytical treatment ofWj(. .) and W2(. .) forms the full complementary model of wellbeing indexes of the science-ecouomy-society-wide moral inclusiveness as explained in expression (6.3) arising from Figure 6.2.22 In this model the attributes {e} determine the consciousness element of every variable characterizing the system to which they belong. We refer to this consciousness as CCSR. Upon the ensuing wellbeing index W(. .) the capability of the entire model is established contrary to pandemic episodes - outburst of poverty in regard to COVED-19. The resulting wellbeing evaluation model describes the IIE-leaming properties of the ontology of unity of knowledge. The endogenous nature of the full complementary model of science-economy-society moral inclusiveness being induced by {6(e)} causes CCSR to create socio-economic structures and the extensively participated policies while reducing transaction cost in realizing such matters. The result of such endogenously emergent participatory science-economy-society moral inclusiveness is sustainability of human values in respect of the episteme of unity of knowledge. Wilson (1998)23 referred to this state of endogenous mind-matter interrelations as consilience. Wilson writes (p. 266): “Science pushed too far is science arrogant. Let it keep its proper place, as the God- given gifts to understand His physical domain.”

< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >